United News of Bangladesh

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has introduced maximum lead levels for baby foods such as jarred fruits, vegetables, yogurts, and dry cereals, aiming to reduce exposure to the toxic metal linked to developmental and neurological issues in children. Announced on Monday, the FDA’s final guidance is expected to lower lead exposure in processed baby foods by 20% to 30%. Although the limits are voluntary for manufacturers, the agency can take enforcement action if products exceed the specified levels. Chinese researchers advance vegetable freshness preservation The FDA described the initiative as part of its commitment to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods.” Consumer advocacy groups welcomed the move but criticized it for being delayed and insufficient. “FDA's actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.” Psychedelic therapy begins in Colorado, causing tension between conservatives and veterans The new limits apply to children under two years old and cover packaged foods such as fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards, puddings, and single-ingredient meats, with lead limits set at 10 parts per billion. For single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals, the limit is 20 parts per billion. However, grain-based snacks like teething biscuits, which studies suggest may have higher lead levels, remain unregulated under the new guidelines. Critics, including Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, argued the limits fall short. “The standards are virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health,” Ronholm said. A Gerber spokesperson confirmed the company’s products meet the FDA’s lead limits. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emphasizes that no level of lead exposure is safe for children, as the metal can harm brain development and slow growth. While some lead naturally occurs in food due to environmental factors like air, water, and soil, the FDA acknowledges it cannot be entirely eliminated. Jimmy Carter made eradicating Guinea worm disease a top mission The new guidance follows a public health scare in 2023–2024, when lead-tainted apple cinnamon puree sickened over 560 children across the U.S., with lead levels detected more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA's recommended maximum. The agency clarified that enforcement against such violations does not require prior guidance.

US President Joe Biden has initiated a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling across most U.S. federal waters, aiming to preempt potential efforts by the incoming Trump administration to expand such drilling, reports AP. Utilizing the authority of the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Biden’s move protects offshore regions along the East and West Coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaska's Northern Bering Sea from future oil and gas leasing. Biden to visit New Orleans on Monday Biden, whose term concludes in two weeks, explained that this decision aligns with the values of coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers who recognise the irreversible damage offshore drilling could cause and its limited necessity for meeting energy demands. He emphasised the urgency of protecting these areas as part of the transition to a clean energy economy amid the climate crisis. The ban does not apply to large portions of the Gulf of Mexico, where the majority of U.S. offshore drilling occurs, but it safeguards coastlines in California, Florida, and other states. Biden’s action, which shields over 625 million acres of federal waters, would likely require congressional action to be reversed, presenting challenges for President-elect Donald Trump, who has a mixed history on offshore drilling. While Trump initially sought to expand offshore drilling, he later prohibited it in certain areas, such as Florida’s coasts, following public opposition. Environmental groups welcomed Biden's decision, viewing it as crucial for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing global warming. Joseph Gordon of Oceana lauded the action as a "victory" for oceans and coastal communities, highlighting the economic and environmental importance of protecting these areas. Biden rejects Nippon Steel's proposed deal Biden stated that the protected areas offer minimal fossil fuel potential and that the risks to public health, the environment, and the economy outweigh the benefits of new drilling. However, a Trump spokesperson criticised the move, accusing Biden of driving up gas prices and pledging to reverse the decision. Balancing competing interests, Biden has proposed limited oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico while excluding Alaska, navigating demands from both energy companies and environmental activists. A five-year drilling plan approved in 2023 includes three proposed offshore sales in 2025, 2027, and 2029, the minimum required under a 2022 climate law to facilitate offshore wind development. State Department report unveils lavish gifts to Biden family, CIA Biden’s efforts to curtail offshore drilling follow prior actions to restrict drilling in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean, even as his approval of the Willow oil project in Alaska faced backlash from environmental advocates.

The fourth anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has a new focus as lawmakers brace for the prospect that President-elect Donald Trump may soon pardon many of the more than 1,500 people charged with crimes for their actions related to the riot. Trump said he would issue pardons to rioters on “Day 1” of his presidency, which begins Jan. 20. “Most likely, I’ll do it very quickly,” he said recently on NBC's “Meet the Press.” He added that “those people have suffered long and hard. And there may be some exceptions to it. I have to look. But, you know, if somebody was radical, crazy.” His promise, made throughout his campaign for the White House, is shadowing events Monday as lawmakers gather to certify a presidential election for the first time since 2021, when Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol and temporarily halted the certification of an election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said she has spoken at length with Trump and is lobbying him to pardon everyone who participated in the siege. Few Republicans are going that far, but many believe it’s appropriate for Trump to look at pardons on a case-by-case basis. “Here we are nearly four years later. Many of these people have been in prison since 2021. Even the ones that fought Capitol Police, caused damage to the Capitol, I think they’ve served their time and I think they should all be pardoned and released from prison," Greene said. "Some of these people have been given prison sentences: 10 years, 18 years and more. I think it’s an injustice. It’s a two-tiered justice system, and it’s time to end it.” More than 1,250 have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials in connection with Jan. 6, with more than 650 receiving prison time ranging from a few days to 22 years. Many of those who broke into the Capitol were echoing Trump’s false claims about election fraud. Some rioters menacingly called out the names of prominent politicians — particularly then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and then-Vice President Mike Pence, who refused to try to object to Biden’s win. Lawmakers who had evacuated both chambers on Jan. 6 returned that night to finish their work. Police officers who defended the Capitol are particularly incensed about the possible pardons. Many officers were beaten, some with their own weapons, as they tried to hold back the mob. About 140 officers were injured on Jan. 6, making it “likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement” in American history, Matthew Graves, the outgoing U.S. attorney in the nation's capital, has said. “You cannot be pro-police officer and rule of law if you are pardoning people who betrayed that trust, injured police officers and ransacked the Capitol,” said Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who retired due to his injuries after fighting rioters. Some Republicans in Congress, even those closely aligned with Trump, suggested not all Jan. 6 offenders should be treated the same. Rep. Jim Jordan, a top Trump ally who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he supported some pardons, but also made a distinction. “For people who didn’t commit any violence, I think everyone supports that. I think that makes sense,” said Jordan, R-Ohio. Veteran Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., also wasn't ready to go as far as Greene. "You've got to look at it individually. Some probably deserve to be pardoned,” he said. But he was more reticent when asked if those who attacked U.S. Capitol police officers should be among those pardoned. “My goodness. Again, I'd have to look at the scenario,” he said. “But if they attacked the U.S. Capitol Police, it's a big problem.” Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said not every single charge is the same and that people who were trespassing are a different category from those who entered the Capitol and damaged property. He said he believes Trump will look at each individual circumstance and decide what is appropriate. “People who attacked police officers, listen, I don't think that is something we should ever condone,” Johnson said. House Democrats, who led the drive to impeach Trump over Jan. 6 and conducted a wide-ranging investigation into the attack, warned that the pardons could have far-reaching consequences, both for the rule of law and the security of the country. Members of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, for instance, were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes in relation to the insurrection. “Those 140-odd law enforcement people who got hurt defending this institution, I think anyone who loves peace and security would be offended that you would pardon people who attacked those individuals for doing their jobs,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. Thompson led the House committee that investigated the events surrounding Jan. 6, concluding with a report that said Trump “lit the fire" for the insurrection. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who served as lead impeachment manager during Trump's second impeachment trial in which he was acquitted, said if pardons are going to happen, people should demand contrition and repentance from each of those pardoned and an affirmative statement they pose no further threat to public safety. “Because anything that happens by these people, in a political context or some other context, will essentially be laid at the doorstep soon-to-be President Donald Trump,” Raskin said. Like police officers who protected them, lawmakers who were in the Capitol during the attack have a visceral reaction to the pardon talk, having barely escaped a mob that seemed determined to do them harm. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who was trapped in the House gallery as rioters tried to break in below, said it would be “extraordinarily difficult” for him and many others if Trump goes ahead with the pardons. “I’m pretty controlled and pretty disciplined, but that would be really hard,” Himes said. “Too many of us had very personal experiences with the people who are serving time or were convicted.”  

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump welcomed Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to his Mar-a-Lago resort on Saturday. Meloni's visit follows that of Argentine President Javier Milei, who was the first international leader to meet Trump at Mar-a-Lago after his November election win. Other leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, have also traveled to Florida to meet the incoming president. Trump attended a documentary screening focused on challenges faced by conservative lawyers within the legal system. He entered the grand ballroom at approximately 7 p.m. and returned after two hours, following dinner. Expressing enthusiasm, Trump introduced Meloni to the audience, stating, “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy. She has made waves in Europe and beyond, and we’re just having dinner tonight.” Washington Post cartoonist quits after paper rejects sketch of Bezos bowing to Trump Meloni watched the documentary alongside Trump and several key figures expected to join his administration, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Trump's nominee for secretary of state; Florida Representative Mike Waltz, his pick for national security adviser; and Scott Bessent, his nominee for Treasury secretary. Meloni's visit coincides with rising tensions between Italy and Iran. Late last month, Iranian authorities detained Italian journalist Cecilia Sala in Tehran. Italy has called for her release, while Iran seeks the extradition of an Iranian businessman arrested in Milan on a U.S. warrant for alleged involvement in a drone strike in Jordan that killed three American soldiers. Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden is preparing for a visit to Rome, where he will meet Meloni and Pope Francis starting Thursday. The White House announced that Biden's meeting with Meloni aims to underscore the strong U.S.-Italy alliance and acknowledge her leadership during Italy's G7 presidency last year.  

A cartoonist has decided to quit her job at the Washington Post after an editor rejected her sketch of the newspaper's owner and other media executives bowing before President-elect Donald Trump. Ann Telnaes posted a message Friday on the online platform Substack saying that she drew a cartoon showing a group of media executives bowing before Trump while offering him bags of money, including Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Telnaes wrote that the cartoon was intended to criticize “billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump." Several executives, Bezos among them, have been spotted at Trump’s Florida club Mar-a-Lago. She accused them of having lucrative government contracts and working to eliminate regulations. Telnaes said that she's never before had a cartoon rejected because of its inherent messaging and that such a move is dangerous for a free press. “As an editorial cartoonist, my job is to hold powerful people and institutions accountable," Telnaes wrote. "For the first time, my editor prevented me from doing that critical job. So I have decided to leave the Post. I doubt my decision will cause much of a stir and that it will be dismissed because I'm just a cartoonist. But I will not stop holding truth to power through my cartooning, because as they say ‘Democracy dies in darkness.’” Read: Woman quits job to look after husband because 'men should be spoilt by their wives'  The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists issued a statement Saturday accusing the Post of “political cowardice" and asking other cartoonists to post Telnaes' sketch with the hashtag #StandWithAnn in a show of solidarity. “Tyranny ends at pen point,” the association said. “It thrives in the dark, and the Washington Post simply closed its eyes and gave in like a punch-drunk boxer.” The Post's communications director, Liza Pluto, provided The Associated Press on Saturday with a statement from David Shipley, the newspaper's editorial page editor. Shipley said in the statement that he disagrees with Telnaes' “interpretation of events.” He said he decided to nix the cartoon because the paper had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and was set to publish another. “Not every editorial judgement is a reflection of a malign force. ... The only bias was against repetition," Shipley said.

A fire that broke out at a shopping center in Dallas on Friday morning killed more than 500 animals, most of which were small birds, authorities said. The 579 animals in the pet shop at Plaza Latina in Northwest Dallas died from smoke inhalation, Dallas Fire-Rescue spokesperson Jason Evans said in a statement. The flames from the fire never reached the animals. Chickens, hamsters, two dogs and two cats also died, Evans said. The two-alarm fire took about two hours and as many as 45 firefighters to extinguish around 11am, Evans said. “While DFR personnel did search and attempt rescue, all animals in the shop unfortunately perished due to smoke inhalation,” Evans said. No people were injured in the fire. The structure of the large, one-story shopping center was severely damaged, including a partially collapsed roof, Evans said. The shopping center includes multiple small businesses and was described on its Facebook page as "a place where people can go to eat, and buy all sorts of Latin goods and services.” A post on the page in Spanish asked for prayers for the families who work there. The cause of the fire was not immediately determined and is under investigation, Evans said.

The US Chamber of Commerce and a top oil and gas industry trade group are suing Vermont over its new law requiring that fossil fuel companies pay a share of the damage caused over several decades by climate change. The federal lawsuit filed Monday asks a state court to prevent Vermont from enforcing the law, which was passed last year. Vermont became the first state in the country to enact the law after it suffered catastrophic summer flooding and damage from other extreme weather. The state is working to estimate the cost of climate change dating back to Jan. 1, 1995. The lawsuit argues the U.S. Constitution precludes the act and that the state law is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. It also argues that the law violates domestic and foreign commerce clauses by discriminating “against the important interest of other states by targeting large energy companies located outside of Vermont.” The Chamber and the other plaintiff in the lawsuit, the American Petroleum Institute, argue that the federal government is already addressing climate change. And because greenhouse gases come from billions of individual sources, they argue it is impossible to measure “accurately and fairly” the impact of emissions from a particular entity in a particular location over decades. “Vermont wants to impose massive retroactive penalties going back 30 years for lawful, out-of-state conduct that was regulated by Congress under the Clean Air Act," said Tara Morrissey, senior vice president and deputy chief counsel of the Chamber’s litigation center. “That is unlawful and violates the structure of the U.S. Constitution — one state can’t try to regulate a global issue best left to the federal government. Vermont’s penalties will ultimately raise costs for consumers in Vermont and across the country.” Ancient climate crisis offers warning on modern ocean acidification: study A spokesman for the state's Agency of Natural Resources said it had not been formally served with this lawsuit. Anthony Iarrapino, a Vermont-based lobbyist with the Conservation Law Foundation, said the lawsuit was the fossil fuel industry's way of “trying to avoid accountability for the damage their products have caused in Vermont and beyond.” “More states are following Vermont’s lead holding Big Oil accountable for the disaster recovery and cleanup costs from severe storms fueled by climate change, ensuring that families and businesses no longer have to foot the entire bill time and time again," Iarrapino added. Under the law, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, is to issue a report by Jan. 15, 2026, on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024. The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company. It’s a polluter-pays model affecting companies engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil attributable to more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during the time period. The funds could be used by the state for such things as improving stormwater drainage systems; upgrading roads, bridges and railroads; relocating, elevating or retrofitting sewage treatment plants; and making energy efficient weatherization upgrades to public and private buildings. It’s modeled after the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program. The approach taken by Vermont has drawn interest from other states, including New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law a similar bill in December. The New York law requires companies responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions to pay into a state fund for infrastructure projects meant to repair or avoid future damage from climate change. The biggest emitters of greenhouse gases between 2000 and 2018 would be subjected to the fines.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken will embark on what is expected to be his final overseas trip in office this weekend, traveling to South Korea, Japan and France. The State Department announced Friday that Blinken would visit Seoul, Tokyo and Paris beginning Sunday. In South Korea, which is in the midst of political turmoil following the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, and Japan, Blinken intends to highlight the expansion of U.S. cooperation with both nations as part of the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. That strategy is primarily intended to blunt Chinese ambitions in the region but also to deter the nuclear threat from North Korea. Political developments in South Korea, however, after Yoon declared martial law and was later impeached, have raised questions about the stability of Washington-Seoul relations. Judge schedules Trump's sentencing in hush money case for January 10, indicating no jail time The US has taken a cautious approach to the uncertainty, insisting that the US-South Korea alliance remains intact and iron-clad. Blinken will speak with South Korean officials about how “to build on our critical cooperation on challenges around the world based on our shared values,” the State Department said in a statement. In Tokyo, Blinken will “review the tremendous progress the US-Japan alliance has made over the past few years,” the statement said. That includes a major arms sales approval announced on Friday under which the US will deliver some $3.64 billion dollars in medium-range missiles, related equipment and training to Japan. China has repeatedly complained about the potential sale, saying it will affect stability and security in the region, allegations that both Japan and the US reject. Blinken will wrap up his trip in Paris in meetings with French officials to discuss developments in the Middle East and European security, particularly in Ukraine.

President Joe Biden will visit New Orleans next week, with the city still reeling from the deadly New Year’s rampage in which an Army veteran plowed a truck into revelers. The White House says the president and first lady will travel to New Orleans on Monday to “grieve with the families and community members impacted by the tragic attack." Biden rejects Nippon Steel's proposed deal Fourteen people were killed in the attack. The driver, identified as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, an American citizen from Texas, was later killed during an exchange of gunfire with police. Biden said Thursday that he had ordered an “accelerated” investigation into the attack. He also praised the spirit of the people of New Orleans. Who is Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the New Orleans truck attack suspect? After visiting Louisiana, Biden will travel to California for an event in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

President Joe Biden has rejected the nearly $15 billion proposed deal for Nippon Steel of Japan to purchase Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel — affirming his earlier vow to block the acquisition of Steeltown USA’s most storied steel company. “We need major U.S. companies representing the major share of US steelmaking capacity to keep leading the fight on behalf of America’s national interests,” Biden said in a Friday morning statement. His decision comes after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, failed to reach consensus on the possible national security risks of the deal last month, and sent a long-awaited report on the merger to Biden. He had 15 days to reach a final decision. The committee, chaired by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and made up of other Cabinet members, can recommend that the president block a transaction, and federal law gives the president that power. A U.S. official familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press last month that some federal agencies represented on the panel were skeptical that allowing a Japanese company to buy an American-owned steelmaker would create national security risks. The decision comes just weeks before the Democratic president is set to leave office and could damage relations between the U.S. and Japan, which is America’s biggest ally in Asia. Japan is also the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. Biden previously came out against the deal last March — and was backed by the United Steelworkers, concerned over whether the company would honor existing labor agreements or slash jobs, as well as over the firm’s financial transparency. “It is important that we maintain strong American steel companies powered by American steel workers,” Biden said in a March statement, while he was still seeking reelection to the presidency before dropping out of the race. “U.S. Steel has been an iconic American steel company for more than a century, and it is vital for it to remain an American steel company that is domestically owned and operated.” President-elect Donald Trump has also opposed the acquisition and vowed in December on his Truth Social platform to block the deal and to use tax incentives and tariffs to grow the company. On Friday, Steelworkers President David McCall said the union is grateful for Biden's move to block the sale and called it the “right move for our members and our national security.” McCall had long questioned Nippon Steel's status as an honest broker for U.S. national trade interests and reiterated that Friday, saying in a statement that “Nippon has proven itself to be a serial trade cheater." “Allowing it to purchase U.S. Steel would have offered it the opportunity to further destabilize our trade system from within and in the process, compromise our ability to meet our own national security and critical infrastructure needs,” McCall said. McCall insisted that U.S. Steel has the financial wherewithal to make the company strong and resilient. For its part, Nippon Steel had said it is best positioned to help American steel compete in an industry dominated by the Chinese and to invest billions in United Steelworkers-represented facilities, including the company's aging blast furnaces. It pledged to protect U.S. Steel in trade matters, and promised not to import steel slabs that would compete with the blast furnaces. Nippon Steel announced in December 2023 that it planned to buy the steel producer for $14.9 billion in cash and debt, and committed to keep the U.S. Steel name and Pittsburgh headquarters. Despite that, its proposal raised concerns about what the transaction could mean for unionized workers, supply chains and U.S. national security. The announcement came during a tide of renewed political support for rebuilding America’s manufacturing sector and followed a long stretch of protectionist U.S. tariffs that analysts say have helped reinvigorate domestic steel. Nippon Steel waged a public relations campaign to win over supporters, even offering $5,000 in closing bonuses to U.S. Steel employees, a nearly $100 million expense. A growing number of conservatives and business groups like the U.S. Chamber had publicly backed the deal, as Nippon Steel began to win over some Steelworkers union members and mayors in areas near its blast furnaces in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump’s first secretary of state, called a potential rejection of the deal “shortsighted” in the Wall Street Journal last month. “The deal would strengthen U.S. Steel’s current operations and production capacity, benefit its workers and their communities, and enhance the competitiveness of the American steel industry,” he wrote.